Practical Defense 216 - Zimmerman-Martin Incident with Marty Hayes

[Alex Haddox]

Zimmerman-Martin Incident with Marty Hayes - Marty Hayes, President of the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network, joins us for a discussion of the facts regarding the Zimmerman-Martin incident of February 2012.

Check out the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network:
http://armedcitizensnetwork.org/

51:23 mins

[Charlie Foxtrot]

  
Very nice interview, Alex and Marty. Excellent, fact driven analysis and commentary. 

However, I'm afraid Zimmerman will be sacrificed to the god "Greater Good".  

[PoliticsAndGuns]

 
However, I'm afraid Zimmerman will be sacrificed to the god "Greater Good".  

While I understand the sentiment CF I certainly hope that that is not the case. We have a very good criminal defense system (not by any means perfect) and Zimmerman seems to have money at his disposal for legal fees and a competent attorney.

In my opinion only, in high profile cases he who has money has a good deal greater chance of winning. If the media reports are correct Zimmerman has been given over $150,000 in donations for legal fees so far, and that should pay for a very good defense.

My fear is the reactions of a public that is not concerned about the facts and only cares about seeing what they want done. I am sure that Mr. Zimmerman if acquitted can never live in Florida (and probably not the south at all) again.

Finally, I agree that it was an excellent interview, and I really appreciated the dispassionate review of the facts as we have them now.

[Charlie Foxtrot]

   
I hope you're right, Paul. 
 
Care to bet? ;^)'

[xmunckx]

I have been trying to follow this story as much as I can and I have to say this is some of the best info on the case I have seen so far.
Thanks. 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[Charlie Foxtrot]

 
Latest in Zimmerman Case

From ABC News:Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations After Trayvon Martin Shooting

Evidence: Trayvon Had Bruised Knuckles, Zimmerman Broken Nose

FBI may charge George Zimmerman with hate crime

[Devereaux]

It's your last reference that is truly disturbing, CF. I heard it on the news earlier today. The FBI will do whatever is politically expedient, and that means as long as that coward, Holder, is head of "Justice" Z is going to jail. OTOH, there are innocent people going to jail every day. Quite a system we have here.

[Charlie Foxtrot]

   
Another one for the stomach acid:

Censored Race War

I've been reading Dr. Thomas Sowell for years decades.  The man pulls no punches with his clear, often prescient analysis. Not happy making.   

[Charlie Foxtrot]

Cops, Witnesses Back Up George Zimmerman's Version of Trayvon Martin Shooting: ABC

[Charlie Foxtrot]

 
Zimmerman released on a One Million Dollars bail: CNN

Don't bother guessing the amount of bail for an alien, multiple-felony-convicted, guilty-as-hell, gang-banger with no fixed address facing a multiple murder rap. 

[PoliticsAndGuns]

 
Zimmerman released on a One Million Dollars bail: CNN

Don't bother guessing the amount of bail for a alien, multiple-felony-convicted, guilty-as-hell, gang-banger with no fixed address facing a multiple murder rap. 

Ok, I can't resist... $550?

[Uninformed Opinion]

To be fair, Zimmerman EARNED that amount of bail by trying to hide money and a second passport, painting himself as a high flight risk. Watching his bumbling antics sense this has happened and that fact that he was stupid enough to get out of the damn car in the first place has pretty much left me not giving a single damn what happens to him. He is but a sad and pathetic little foot note showing us some of the failings in how the stand your ground law is handled and where we need to patch it up so that law abiding people may defend themselves without worry. Beyond that, he is not worth mentioning as far as I can see.

[Devereaux]

Harsh, UO. Especially since it appears that he is most likely going to get off on the state charges. What the Fed decides to do here is another story, but we shall have to see how this all unfolds.

[SirBrass]

 
Very nice interview, Alex and Marty. Excellent, fact driven analysis and commentary. 

However, I'm afraid Zimmerman will be sacrificed to the god "Greater Good".  

Considering how facts are simply absent from the prosecution's case, I'm not sure a jury would be ABLE to convict.  You can't prove guilt when all the evidence that comes out after the libtard photshopping is removed is that this was justified self-defense.

[SirBrass]

Harsh, UO. Especially since it appears that he is most likely going to get off on the state charges. What the Fed decides to do here is another story, but we shall have to see how this all unfolds.

Sorry for the double post, but if he is acquitted of the crime, how can justice step in and charge him again for the SAME ACT without violating double jeopardy (which any but the most braindead lawyer would fail to utilize if valid)?  Saying, "Yeah he's not guilty of murder but this was a hate crime!" makes no sense.  If no crime was committed by Zimmerman (as found by a jury acquitting him), then how can a hate crime be committed in the same act?

[Uninformed Opinion]

Sorry for the double post, but if he is acquitted of the crime, how can justice step in and charge him again for the SAME ACT without violating double jeopardy (which any but the most braindead lawyer would fail to utilize if valid)?  Saying, "Yeah he's not guilty of murder but this was a hate crime!" makes no sense.  If no crime was committed by Zimmerman (as found by a jury acquitting him), then how can a hate crime be committed in the same act?

Well, while it is the same action, they will be charging him based not on the action, but the motive. Kind of like the military likes to hit people for 10 different articles for the same offense.  Kind of like someone getting off on a murder charge only to be hit with the maximum penalty for discharging a firearm in city limits. It was the same action, but they can use a separate charge on a different aspect of the action to avoid double jeopardy. As they aren't charging him on the action itself, but on the motive of the action, it would not be double jeopardy.

Harsh, UO. Especially since it appears that he is most likely going to get off on the state charges. What the Fed decides to do here is another story, but we shall have to see how this all unfolds.

Well, probably, but I have a very bad habit of calling things like I see them, and I have seen nothing so far to make me think this guy has any redeeming qualities. Now, I do think that he may very well have been assaulted by Martin and shoot in response, but I also think that he, intentionally or not I can't say, instigated the situation and cause Martins fight of flight instinct to kick in. As such the blame lies solely on Zimmerman's shoulders. No sympathy.

[SirBrass]

Considering he broke off following when asked by dispatch and was simply retrieving information for them (which required him to get out of his car and go to the other side of the houses b/c of how the neighborhood is laid out), I don't see how he instigated it.  His gun was still concealed when Martin confronted him (not was caught by him and backed into a corner) and attacked him.  Martin has the opportunity to "escape" w/o getting seen or chased by Zimmerman but instead decided to try and pound Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk.  How in any rational universe does that constitute Zimmerman instigating.

Also, UO, if a jury finds that NO crime has been committed, then how can a lawful action then be a hate crime?  I can see how they can do that if he's found guilty of a crime, then he can be prosecuted for motivation (warning:  if you think about it, that's thought-police tactics right there... charging someone for what they may or may not have THOUGHT instead of charging them for something demonstrably done), but not if he's acquitted.  That is, it doesn't matter what he thought or was motivated by if there was no actual crime committed.  Otherwise, the fed can charge someone with a "hate crime" when they've done nothing that is against the law, but the administration just wants to punish them for something... so charge them with the "you can't prove us wrong" charge of a "hate crime."

[Devereaux]

Brass -

The fed, and the locals from time to time, have been prosecuting thought crimes for some time. Consider conspiracy. If you talk about making a bomb, the cops claim conspiracy and you go to jail. Blagojevich (my wonderful governor) was prosecuted for talking about selling the Obama senate seat. NOW, had Fitzgerald NOT been a democrat hack, he would have waited in his investigation to have Blogo actually do that - but then he would have also snagged Jesse Jackson Jr. in the net. And he didn't want to catch him, too. So he "sprang" the investigation early. He is really lucky that he got a conviction because it also was a thought crime.

The feds don't care. They are out for a scalp, and a political one to boot. EVEN when they are wrong, they simply leave people hanging, and since they have unending funds, it doesn't matter. Meanwhile real people run out of money - and patience. And their lives are trashed. See the recent case of a couple that owned a gun store that the feds ran a real piece of work on to entrap into BS charges of trafficking.

Our government is out of control. The Founding Fathers wisely attempted to limit the scope and size of the government - but over time it escapes if the people are not seriously vigilant.

[SirBrass]

Franklin said we had a republic... but only if we could keep it.

It seems the republic is slowly slipping from our grasp as people get apathetic and loosen their hold.

[Devereaux]

And Roberts' recent SCOTUS decision may well have put PAID on it. No matter how much the right tries to spin the result, it is a precedent - and SCOTUS is crazy about precedent. And this precedent essentially unbridles the fed to do whatever they want. There are NO limits. Even tax had limits in the constitution - this hardly fell into the accepted types of tax that the fed can collect.

Justice Roberts may well have doomed us to have to fight to regain our rights and the constitution (well, you younger ones - I'm probably too old to engage in such anymore). I see little other way to effectively put the genie back in the bottle. I hear over and over that we need to be peaceful but I have to ask myself just what would BE our reason to no longer accept the peaceful alternative. ?What caused the original Americans to rise up against England; seems to me a LOT less than the abuse we are experiencing by the fed these days. If the FF's could see the fed today, they would NEVER have voted to accept the constitution back then. Many of today's abuses were foreseen and commented upon by those of the founding generation, who were overall highly educated and thoughtful people. Today just the level of education we have is darn near disgusting.